JUDGMENT : P.K. Misra, J. - Defendants have filed this appeal against the order of the trial court challenging the legality of the order dated 24-11-1998 passed in M.J. C. No. No. 230 of 1998 arising out of Title Suit No. 125 of 1998. 2. The Plaintiff-respondents have filed the aforesaid suit for declaration of right, title and interest and for permanent injunction in respect of the disputed land. During the pendency of the suit, an application was filed for appointment of receiver.The trial court directed that the standing crops raised in the year 1998 shall be harvested by the Revenue Inspector of Gosani Nuagam and the sale proceeds deposited after deducting the expenditure. It also directed that the disputed land shall be put to auction amongst the parties from the next year. The said order has been challenged in the present appeal. 3. It had been submitted on behalf of counsel for the Appellants that no receiver should be appointed. However, the counsel for the Respondents had submitted that since the property was in medio it was appropriate to appoint a receiver particularly on the basis of auction as both parties would be in a position to participate in the auction. On 16-3-1999, when the matter was taken up for hearing, the parties were directed to give their offer in sealed cover and the matter was taken up on 23-3-1999. Both the parties are present along with their counsels. One offer has been made in sealed cover on behalf of the Appellants and similarly,another offer has been made on behalf of the Respondents. 4. The trial court has adverted to various facts and circumstances of the case and found that there was dispute between the parties relating to possession. The arrangement made by the trial court to put the disputed land to auction among the parties appears to be in the interest of justice and as such is not required to be interfered with. However, since the parties are present and have given their offer pursuant to previous order, instead of directing the trial court to hold auction for this year, it is thought fit to open the offer, in presence of the parties and their counsels and to take action in accordance with such offer. On opening the bids, it appears that the Appellants have offered to deposit Rs. On opening the bids, it appears that the Appellants have offered to deposit Rs. 7,000/- towards the net income of the disputed land, whereas the Respondents have offered & a sum of Rs. 11,000/-.Since the bid of the Respondents is higher,their offer is accepted and it is directed that Respondent No. 1 shall be appointed as receiver of the disputed land for the year 1999-2000, i.e. for the period from 1-4-1999 till 31-3-2000. He has directed to deposit a sum of Rs. 11,000/- in three installments. The first instalment of Rs. 6,000/- is to be deposited by end of July, 1999. The second instalment of Rs. 2,500/- is to be deposited by end of October, 1999 and the balance instalment of Rs. 2,500/- is to be deposited by 31st. January, 2000. The amount shall be deposited in the trial court and shall be kept in appropriate fixed deposit for the benefit of the ultimate successful party. It is further directed that the suit should be disposed of by 31st. March, 2000. However, if for any reason, the suit is not disposed of by 31st. March, 2000, appropriate arrangement for the year 2000-2001 shall be made by holding auction among the parties. Such auction shall be held in the second week of April, 2000 on a date and at a place to be fixed by the trial court. Since Respondent No. 1 is appointed as receiver, all other parties are restrained from interfering with the possession of the receiver till 31st. March, 2000. 5. Subject to the aforesaid observation, the appeal is disposed of. There will be no order as to costs. Copy of this order be communicated to the trial, court immediately. Appeal disposed of.